Whitfield v Police - [2024] NZHC 2270

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND INVERCARGILL REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WAIHŌPAI ROHE

CRI-2024-425-19 [2024] NZHC 2270

BETWEEN
MATHEW JAMES WHITFIELD

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 12 August 2024

Appearances:

T J McCullum for Appellant M B Brownlie for Respondent

Judgment:

13 August 2024

JUDGMENT OF DUNNINGHAM J

This judgment was delivered by me on 13 August 2024 at 3 pm, pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar
Date……………

WHITFIELD v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2024] NZHC 2270 [13 August 2024]

Introduction

[1] Matthew Whitfield pleaded guilty to five charges of burglary,1 four charges of theft of motor vehicle,2 11 charges relating to theft (under $500),3 two charges relating to theft (between $500 and $1,000),4 one charge of theft (over $1,000),5 and one charge of unlawful possession of ammunition.6 On 20 February 2024 he was sentenced by Judge Harvey to three years and four months’ imprisonment.

[2] Mr Whitfield now appeals his sentence on the basis the Judge erred in his assessment of mitigating factors and the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive.

The facts

[3] Between 23 February 2023 and 16 March 2023, the appellant committed burglary at three separate residential properties taking various items, including, at the last property, firearms, electronic equipment, jewellery and other property valued at at least $35,000. Two further burglaries were committed on 29 March 2023 of two separate dairies in Gore, although no goods were taken.

[4] Between February 2023 and March 2023, the appellant engaged in a series of thefts. In the main, these were from various Pak’nSave and New World supermarkets. The appellant also stole items from two Farmers department stores. Additionally, the appellant broke into four vehicles stealing radar detectors and other items. Finally, when the police executed a search warrant at an address where the appellant had recently lived, two rounds of 12-gauge shotgun ammunition were located.

Sentencing decision

[5] The Judge began by referring to his sentencing indication where he reached an end sentence of three years and 11 months. That comprised a starting point of three and a half years’ imprisonment for the five charges of burglary, an uplift of

1      Crimes Act 1961, s 231(1)(a). Maximum penalty: 10 years’ imprisonment.
2      Crimes Act 1961, s 219 & 223(c). Maximum penalty: one year’s imprisonment.
3      Crimes Act 1961, s 223(d). Maximum penalty: three months’ imprisonment.
4      Crimes Act 1961, s 219 and 223(c). Maximum penalty: one year’s imprisonment.
5      Crimes Act 1961, s 219 & 223 (b). Maximum penalty: seven years’ imprisonment.
6      Arms Act 1983, s 22B. Maximum penalty: a fine not exceeding $10,000.

18 months for the balance of offending, an uplift of three months for the appellant’s conviction history and then a reduction of 25 per cent for guilty pleas to reach an end sentence of three years and 11 months.

[6] The Judge then noted he had received further information since being the pre-sentence report, the s 27 report, and a psychological report. The Judge…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Whitfield v Police

Details

AGLC: Whitfield v Police [2024] NZHC 2270
Case: [2024] NZHC 2270
Decision Date: 13 August 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Mathew James Whitfield appealed his sentence for multiple burglary and theft charges. He argued that the trial judge's assessment of mitigating factors was incorrect, and the sentence was excessively harsh. The High Court assessed the appeal, focusing on whether the sentence was manifestly excessive and whether the judge properly considered the mitigating factors.

Whitfield committed numerous burglaries and thefts, including taking firearms, over a short period. He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to three years and four months’ imprisonment. The sentencing judge had initially considered a sentence of three years and eleven months, but reduced it further after considering additional reports.

The appeal centered on whether the sentencing judge's discounts for mitigating factors such as remorse, background factors, and addiction were appropriate. The appellant argued for additional discounts for these factors, while the respondent maintained that the judge's sentence was reasonable.

The court found that the appellant was entitled to a five per cent discount for remorse, beyond the 25 per cent already applied for his guilty plea. The background factors, including a troubled upbringing and early exposure to methamphetamine, warranted an 11 per cent discount. The court concluded that the 11 per cent discount for addiction was also appropriate, considering the totality of the circumstances.

The appeal was allowed, and the sentence was reduced to three years and one month’s imprisonment. The court quashed the original sentence and imposed the new sentence in its place.

Orders